Being a proud Atheist, and a freedom loving INFIDEL AKA "KUFFAR", WE are threatened by the primitive pidgeon chested jihad boys in the medieval east.
FRACK YOU!! SAY US ALL!! Don't annoy the Pagans and Bikers,, it's a islam FREE ZONE!!! LAN ASTASLEM!!!!

Kathy
Shaidle’s comment on this appalling piece is excellent: “I would die
before I would repeat those words under any circumstances. And yes,
there is a ‘peaceful verse for every violent one.’ However, Muslims use
abrogation to decide which verses are more authoritative. The later
violent (‘sword’) verses cancel out the earlier, peaceful ones. ‘The
odds are that if you are assailed by a radical Islamist in the streets
of London or Toronto, it will be with words not bullets.’ You forgot to
mention knives. Just ask Lee Rigby. Oh wait… you can’t… Everything I
needed to know about Islam, I learned on September 11, 2001. Take your
talk of tolerance and understanding to a Muslim majority country and see
how you fare.”

Imagine: a publication in the free West counseling submission to
murderous thugs in order to save one’s miserable life. Giving in to
thuggery has never been a virtue. Give me liberty or give me death, we
used to say in the U.S., but probably there is a considerable number of
enlightened Leftists here who will be nodding in agreement with Afsun
Qureshi’s insulting and menacing piece.

London, England — As a young girl in a downtown Toronto
hospital, I stood on my tiptoes, peering at my cancer-ridden uncle lying
mutely on the hospital bed. He was asleep — exhausted and wasted from
years of waging war with cancer. For some reason, I was left alone with
him for a few moments, which turned out to be the moments in which he
took his dying breaths. He woke with a jolt and started shrieking in a
booming voice that belied his deathly ill state. His eyes were dilated
but fixed straight at me while he shouted the lines twice. I ran to my
mother, hysterical and shaking. Nurses sprinted to him, adjusting
machines and pumping fluids — but within minutes he had died.

In her attempt to comfort me, my mother explained that the words he
had uttered to me comprised the shahadah, a testimony to the identity of
Allah as the one true God, and Muhammad as his prophet. Muslims are
supposed to recite the shahadah if they know they are dying. It signals
to God that they are indeed Muslims, the real deal. Still, I was spooked
for years.

Yet these words that terrified me saved a number of lives during the
2013 al-Qaeda-linked attack at Kenya’s Westgate Mall. To weed the
Muslims out from the infidels, terrorists asked people to recite the
shahadah to prove their faith. They asked other things too, like certain
key passages of the Koran, the name of Mohammad’s mother, that sort of
thing — it was al-Qaeda Question Hour. The wrong answer meant death.
After that, many, myself included, wondered: Should we — Muslim or
not — learn the basics of Islam and have a read through the Koran? If
one of us ever finds herself in a situation similar to that of Westgate
Mall victims, could even a rudimentary knowledge of Islam save us?

Yes, non-Muslims should indeed learn the basic of Islam and read the
Qur’an, in order to inform themselves about the ideological
underpinnings of the jihad threat — not in order to kowtow to one’s
would-be murderer in order to buy a few more years of a wasted, cowardly
life.

More broadly, being versed in the Koran might help
Muslims to discredit and marginalize the fundamentalists who have warped
the words from that holy book.

That would be great: I would love to see a Qur’an-based refutation of
the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam. Although everyone in the
West assumes that such a thing exists and is easy to find, in reality
the only refutations of the Islamic State’s theology from Muslims in the
West are exercises in deception, diversion, and dishonesty.

Earlier this month, Philip Hammond, Foreign Secretary of
the UK, where I live, said there were at least 500 British Muslims
training with ISIS in Iraq and Syria — more Muslims, apparently, than
there are enlisted in the UK Military. What if these lunatics decide to
use their passport to come back to the UK to launch Westgate-style
attacks?
For every violent passage in the Koran, there is a peaceful passage —
which can be a handy tool when it comes to confronting radicals in the
realm of ideas.

Nonsense. As Shaidle noted, the “radicals” know full well according
to the Qur’anic (2:106) principle of abrogation as it is understood by
mainstream Islamic scholars, the violent Medinan passages take
precedence over the less violent Meccan passages. This is an ancient
concept in Islam: in his eighth-century biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq
explains the contexts of various verses of the Qur’an by saying that
Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first,
tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in
order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya
(see Qur’an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, etc.). Mainstream Qur’an
commentaries by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also
emphasize that Surat At-Tawba abrogates every peace treaty in the
Qur’an.

In the modern age, this idea of stages of development in the Qur’an’s
teaching on jihad, culminating in offensive warfare to establish the
hegemony of Islamic law, has been affirmed by Muslim Brotherhood
theorist Sayyid Qutb, Pakistani Islamic scholar and politician Sayyid
Abul Ala Maududi, the Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik (author of The Qur’anic Concept of War), Saudi Chief Justice Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (in his Jihad in the Qur’an and Sunnah), and others. The “radicals” know all this.

The odds are that if you are assailed by a radical
Islamist in the streets of London or Toronto, it will be with words not
bullets. For the sake of intellectual self-protection, it is worth
getting up to speed on what these fanatics are so fanatical about.
There is much in the Koran about “kafirs” (non-believers) and how
Muslims should deal with them. (Spoiler: They shouldn’t always be
killed.)

No indeed. The “People of the Book” should be subjugated: “Fight
those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden
which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the
religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until
they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
(Qur’an 9:29).

From my personal experience, a conversation with a Muslim
theologue always changes for the better once you show them you have
some kind of knowledge of the Koran and Islam.

Odd. In my experience, once I show Muslim spokesmen that I have some
kind of knowledge of the Qur’an and Islam, their response is invariably
rage, contempt, and furious attacks on my character, parentage,
associates, family, and more.

Some might fear that learning a bit of Islam will lead to
a Homeland type situation, with folks going all Brody on us. But I
doubt that. When I was growing up in Don Mills, Ont., school kids had to
learn and recite the Lord’s Prayer, regardless of the fact that the
majority of students at my school were Jewish. I don’t recall any of us
going on to become Christian soldiers.

But the shahada is different: Muslims understand that saying it
publicly in the presence of a male Muslim witness makes you a Muslim. It
signifies conversion to Islam. Then if you say, “But I didn’t mean
it!,” remember that the penalty for apostasy is death.

In the years since the Iraq War, paramilitary jihadist
groups have been growing. They are all competing for the Gold Medal in
the Jihadist Games: a big hit on America. UK is the Silver — and let’s
hope Canada isn’t the bronze. Until this fight is over, a little
knowledge could go a long way.

In responding
with pique to our piece
on the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees,
Matthew Reynolds deflects attention from our real proposal—one that would put
the organization at least partially out of business.
Reynolds' criticism must be situated properly. Having found the distance
from New York to Washington too great, UNRWA opened an office in the capital
in 2011. As UNRWA's representative in Washington, Reynold's job is to lobby
UNRWA's largest donor, the United States.
For this reason, he seizes upon various observations of ours that he
believes are "canards" for the sake of "cheap political
shots." For example, he is outraged that we observed that UNRWA's
union in Gaza is dominated by Hamas members, who won 25 out of 27 seats
in a 2012 election. As one unnamed former UNRWA staff member put
it at the time, "For the moment, Hamas and UNRWA seem to have an
agreement that UNRWA may continue to function in Gaza so long as it does not
engage in actions that significantly contradict Hamas' world view." This
would appear to support our assertion that "UNRWA is effectively a
branch of Hamas" and belie Reynolds' claim of UNRWA's "policy of
strict neutrality."
We observed that "an unknown number of employees are actual Hamas
fighters (or at least know UNRWA employees with keys to the schools so that
rockets can be stored in classrooms over the summer)." Reynolds calls
this "a very extreme accusation made without any substantiation."
He might take up the matter with former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter
Hansen, who in 2004 stated,
"Oh, I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I
don't see that as a crime. Hamas as a political organization does not mean
that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and
exclude people from one persuasion as against another." (This was before
Hamas took over Gaza and its ruling institutions.)
As for Reynolds' mention of UNRWA's vetting of employees, this is done
under U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1267, a terrorist screening list meant to ensure that no known
members of Al Qaeda join the organization. A 2010 Congressional Research
Service report notes that the "list does not include Hamas, Hezbollah,
or most other militant groups that operate in UNRWA's surroundings….
Nevertheless, UNRWA officials did say that if notified by U.S. officials of
potential matches, they would 'use the information as a trigger to conduct
their own investigation.'"
Excluding Al Qaeda members from UNRWA is a lesser concern than say,
excluding members of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, like UNRWA
school headmaster and PIJ rocket maker Awad al-Qiq, killed in an Israeli
airstrike in 2008, or other local Islamists who might fill out an UNRWA job
application in Gaza.
Regarding our allegation that some relief supplies brought into Gaza are
ending up in Hamas, Reynolds seizes upon a photo used in a news item we
linked to and fabricates an accusation from us, about UNRWA cement bags found
in Hamas' tunnels. Alas, we do not mention cement bags (or flour bags) in our
piece.
He does so to divert attention from several things, above all the question
of what happened to all the cement UNRWA imported into Gaza. Cement, like
money, is fungible. Given the undeniable immensity of Hamas' underground
tunnel infrastructure, it behooves UNRWA to demonstrate what became of the
cement it imported above ground.
Reynolds protests our assertion that Hamas supporters "shape the
curriculum" and retorts "the curriculum of the host country and in
the specific case of Gaza we use the Palestinian Authority (PA)
curriculum." But in the link we cited no less an authority than Motesem
Al Minawi, spokesman for the Education Ministry in Gaza—which is run by
Hamas—who complained
that in the PA's curriculum, "There is a tremendous focus on the
peaceful resistance as the only tool to achieve freedom and
independence."
Indeed, another report
quotes that Al Minawi complained precisely that "UNRWA is acting like a
state within a state… It must understand the limits of its authority; that it
is bound by the curriculum taught in its areas of activity." Are we then
to believe that UNRWA's teachers, who belong to the Hamas-run union, do not
"shape" the curriculum to conform to what UNRWA spokesman Chris
Gunness has called "local values"?
Perhaps because it would put him out of work, Reynolds never does address
our substantive proposal: that Western donors should reprogram monies from
UNRWA and toward the Palestinian Authority, in order to strengthen the latter
in Gaza.
In 2013, the U.S. gave
UNRWA more than $294 million and the European Commission gave more than $216
million. This money is power; reluctantly we conclude it should be given to
the PA rather than to UNRWA.
We do so fully acknowledging that the PA is corrupt. We should add that it
differs ideologically from Hamas mostly in the extent of Islamist rhetoric.
It too believes, as Adli Sadeq, the PLO ambassador to India, recently put it, "We
are protecting all humans, and are on the first line of defense in the battle
of humanity against the dogs."
In the end, Reynolds tips his hand: "With very generous and much
appreciated contributions from the American people, UNRWA is able to provide
basic humanitarian services to some five million registered Palestine
refugees not only in Gaza but also in Lebanon, war-torn Syria, Jordan, and
the West Bank, including East Jerusalem."
Like all welfare organizations, UNRWA wishes "to provide"
endlessly and to a unique population whose "refugee" status it has
independently expanded. In doing so it insinuates itself into every level of
Palestinian society and discourse, competes with the PA for international
funds, and expands
its welfare and legal mandates on its own authority.
Our proposal is to begin the long, painful and overdue process of shifting
money away from UNRWA to the putative Palestinian state. Let
"Palestine"—a "non-member observer state" in United
Nations parlance—take responsibility for its own people. Let the PA show to
the people of Gaza that it can "provide." We propose to give them
the money, the responsibility, and the glory.
This, perhaps, is what UNRWA cannot abide.Alexander Joffe is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow of the Middle East Forum.
Asaf Romirowsky is an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. They are
co-authors of the book Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine
Refugee Relief.

In his book, The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt introduces the
concepts of Moral Foundations psychology. Moral foundations psychology
studies the moral frameworks our minds appear to have built into them. These
frameworks are what lead us to see the events around us in a moral way. This
means, for example, that instead of simply seeing a strong person abusing a
weak and vulnerable person we experience feelings of offence, emotional
intuitions which arouse anger towards the bully and pity towards the victim.
This is what gives us a sense that a bully is ‘in the wrong’ and should be
stopped, reprimanded, and possibly punished. It is this that gives us the
sense that people should not behave in this way. These moral foundations have
evolved during the course of human evolution and form the basis of all our
moral thinking and moral codes. Different moral codes emphasise the different
moral foundations in slightly different ways but they are all built using the
same basic components.

Six moral foundations have been identified so far. They are expressed as pairs
of opposites which define a specific dimension of morality. They are:

§Care/Harm

§Fairness/Cheating

§Liberty/Oppression

§Authority/Subversion

§Loyalty/Betrayal

§Sanctity/Degradation

I’ve examined these dimensions in more detail here. I want to focus on the two which
are most relevant to the political left: Care/Harm and Liberty/Oppression.

As discussed in my previous post, Care/Harm and Liberty/Oppression are given
particular emphasis by those on the political left. You can see this
reflected in their political aims: concern for the weak and vulnerable; the
desire for greater political and economic equality; the protection of various
minority groups from discrimination; a distrust of those in power and a
desire to reduce power differences.

(I would be the first to agree that left-wing policies often have the effect
of disempowering the weak but the moral aspiration is our concern here not
the actual outcomes.)

The Care/Harm foundation is the basis of our outrage at the sight of cruelty
and persecution. We feel motivated to protest against the suffering of others
and we feel hostility towards those causing it. From this foundation springs
our opposition to torture, the exploitation of children (sexual and
otherwise), and our tendency to run to the defence of the defenceless.

Caring for the young is beneficial for survival and genes associated with
this behaviour have a better chance of being transmitted to the next
generation. The original trigger for the Care/Harm response was a child in
distress or danger. The original trigger then became associated with other
subjects. For example, many more people are sensitised to the suffering of
animals and see it as morally wrong to be cruel to them than was the case 100
years ago.

The triggers for these responses are susceptible to cultural variation, both
between cultures and within the same culture over time. The extent to which
individuals within societies experience these responses varies too.

We can see that the Care/Harm foundation is active in the politics of the
left in their concern for the poor. The poor suffer higher levels of just
about all social ills: poorer health, lower life expectancy, higher levels of
mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, child abuse, etc. All these are
manifestations of suffering and elicit the duty of care in the left
(generally by spending other people’s money).

This also underlies the tendency of the left to take the side of the
perceived victims and to see the poor as the victims of circumstance. Their
poverty is never understood as the result of their poor decisions. They are
also very uncomfortable with the idea that the poor reach their natural
position within the social order according to their level of innate ability.

The Liberty/Oppression foundation is most clearly seen when people unite to
take collective action against a bully or tyrant. A sense of righteous anger
is often the driving force for corrective action against a powerful person or
group that is seen to be too dominant over others.

Moral foundations theory accounts for this reaction in the following way:
Humans, like our primate forebears, are naturally adapted to living in
hierarchies and have learned how to navigate successfully through
relationships of dominance and submission. However, the archaeological
evidence shows that our ancestors lived as bands of mobile hunter-gatherers
for hundreds of thousands of years. Hunter-gatherer societies are
egalitarian.

Hierarchical societies become widespread later once agriculture develops.
Private property and the accumulation of wealth lead to inequalities of
power. So, are we natural egalitarians trapped in hierarchical social
structures?

No we aren’t. The anthropologist Christopher Boehm has studied tribal
cultures and also chimpanzees. He was struck by the remarkable similarities
in the way humans and chimpanzees display dominance and submission.[2] We are
wired for hierarchy. He suggests that at some point in the last half a
million years we underwent a political transition whereby dominant Alpha
males were taken down through collective rebellion. These mechanisms allowed
our ancestors to maintain egalitarian groups.

By doing this, we created the first moral communities in which violations of
group principles (that no individual should bully others and hog resources)
were punished by ostracism or death. These changes were facilitated by the
development of language and weapons. The first giving the group the means to
communicate disgruntlement and plot the overthrow of the bullying Alpha male;
the second, giving the means for weaker opponents to attack him.

This foundation is expressed in situations where justice is seen to be served
by groups of weaker individuals uniting to overthrow a dominant group or
individual. People still retain the tendency to dominate others when they can
get away with it but we also have the desire for a more equal distribution of
power and resources when we are the underdog.

As Jonathon Haidt says, “The hatred of oppression is found on both sides of
the political spectrum. The difference seems to be that for liberals−who are
more universalistic and who rely more heavily upon the Care/Harm
foundation−the Liberty/Oppression foundation is employed in the service of
underdogs, victims, and powerless groups everywhere.” [3]

Perception and Reality

In an previous post I looked at the selective and
interpretive nature of perception. From all the information arriving in our
senses our brains create the interpretation that we treat as reality. This
doesn’t mean that what we see is a fiction. What it does mean is that
‘reality’ is skewed and coloured by a whole range of factors including
emotion, memory, selective attention, expectations, assumptions, and so on.
The internal representation is an approximation to reality. Some
approximations are better than others. Some are outright distortions.

This must be even truer when the reality we are trying to understand is hard
to apprehend, highly complex, hotly contested, and covers a long period of
time. Such is the case with respect to Israel and the history of the Jews. Much
of what we ‘see’ as we try to understand the reality is held in our
imagination. As such it is affected just as much, if not more, by all those
factors listed above which are skewing and colouring the representation that
we hold.

The Liberty/Oppression framework is applied by the Left to Israel and the
Palestinians with Israel cast as the bullying Alpha male. This model is
sustained by focusing on Israel’s strength relative to the angry mobs of Gaza
and the West Bank; on Israel’s ability to hit back hard when provoked. It is
also maintained by focusing on the unequal number of casualties on each side
and ignoring the fact that whereas Israel seeks to protect its citizens (and
that is why it is fighting in the first place), Hamas puts its people in harm’s
way because this helps to reinforce the view that Israel is an oppressive
bully.

The mental models that people hold are also sustained by filtering out
information. This is particularly the case with morally charged models: they
are not tested against the full range of facts in an objective way but rather
facts and the interpretation of events are selected in order to sustain the
model. The result is then paraded as the truth.

We should all recognize in ourselves the tendency to avoid information that conflicts
with our viewpoint (internal models). We should also recognize that we find
it harder to remember information which conflicts with our viewpoint. The
internal model organizes our response to a particular subject and when the
subject is highly charged and controversial this organising is particularly
vigorous, having a strong tendency to discard information that conflicts with
the model.

We usually enjoy information (however unpleasant in itself) which confirms
our model of reality. We dislike information that is dissonant. Dissonant
information is more likely to be questioned, distorted, avoided, or
forgotten.

Moral foundations form part of the mental architecture that organises our
perception of reality and the internal representation of it that we build and
maintain. In the case of Israel and the Left, the dominant moral foundations
of the Left are very active in forming their perception and internal
representation of Israel’s relationship to the Palestinians and the Middle
East as a whole. They act like a template which forces information to conform
to a predetermined pattern or narrative. Information which conflicts with the
template is blocked; that which conforms is endlessly rehearsed.

Within the framework of this template, Israel is cast as the stronger
opponent while the pitiful Palestinians take the role of plucky victims
standing up to the Alpha male. They take on the mantle of virtue in the face
of oppression, only wanting to live in peace and freedom, while Israel is the
ironclad monster that dominates and terrorises, taking more than its fair
share of resources and trapping the Palestinians in misery and poverty.

Seen in these terms, the Left then justifies terrorism as the “weapon of the
dispossessed”, an understandable recourse for those in an intolerable
situation. Glowing with feelings of identification with the oppressed they
then rehearse their endless slogans in solidarity with the enemies of Israel.

What we must remember is that this application of the Liberty/Oppression
framework is relatively new; the mental structure underlying the framework is
as old as mankind.

David and Goliath

Whist writing this article I came across a review by Daniel Greenfield of a new book by Joshua
Muravchik called Making David into Goliath: How the world turned against
Israel. This sets out how Israel has come to be cast as the bullying Alpha
male in this conflict, how it is deemed by the Left to be the oppressor and
not the victim of persecution.

The story of David and Goliath is a great metaphor for the Liberty/Oppression
foundation and the perceptual template derived from it. It even includes a
long range weapon being used to bring down a stronger opponent. I can just
imagine Hamas rockets being romanticised in the same manner. The youths
throwing stones at Israeli tanks certainly fit the pattern.

The turning point in the West’s (but particularly the Left’s) attitude
towards Israel was the Six Day War of 1967. Until this time Israel had been
something of a darling for the international Left: it was democratic,
liberal, egalitarian and communal, all neatly encapsulated in the kibbutzim
movement.

It previous conflicts with the Arab states surrounding it Israel had looked
like David fending off Goliath but the very swiftness and decisiveness of its
victory in 1967 provided the seed for a new approach by the Arabs.

Incapable of destroying Israel by brute force the era of Palestinianism began
- meaning the presentation of the Palestinians as the hapless victims of
Israel’s military and economic superiority, a dispossessed people suffering
perpetual exile.

Ironically, it was the dazzling display of military prowess by Israel against
all the odds that would be used against Israel, used to present it as
Goliath, the evil oppressor that should be overthrown. This pattern would be
reiterated in a thousand conferences and used to demonise and delegitimise
the only country in the region with civilised standards; in fact, the true
David in the situation, not oppressors but the victims of centuries of
persecution defending the homeland that is so obviously needed in the face of
all the hatred now directed against it. Hatred of Israel proves Israel’s necessity.

As Muravchik says, “The world’s historical “Clock” for Israel has been set to
right after 1967. The initial perceptions of its aftermath; Israel’s military
superiority, the “oppressed” Palestinians who suddenly came into being after
coming out of the rule of Egypt and Jordan, and the urgent need for a
negotiated solution, have been frozen in time as the default worldview with
little regard for what came before or after.”

This frozen view of Israel has been consolidated in the ensuing decades. Muslim
spokesmen have multiplied in the West thus affording them the opportunity to
frame Israel as the oppressor to Western audiences. Departments of Middle
East Studies have been established with Arab funding which shamelessly echo
the Arab/Muslim demonization of Israel and promote the view that all
conflicts have as their ultimate source the Israel/Palestinian issue; that
once this is addressed (in favour of the Palestinians) all will be well in
the world; the opportunities to portray Israel as a bullying usurper and
occupier have been exploited to the full.

Acting as an organising framework for all this information in the minds of
Western audiences is the Liberty/Oppression foundation. It is this which
appears to give the Palestinians a moral cause against Israel. The
Liberty/Oppression framework also plays into the tendency of people (probably
the majority) who think with their emotions. When those emotions are also
given a moral fervour we witness the hideous sight of leftists marching in
lockstep with Islamo-fascists in self-righteous hatred.

Given that the media is dominated by liberals and leftists, it looks at the
world through the template of Liberty/Oppression and defines Israel as the
bully. Its focus is narrow and looks at events in an ephemeral manner, giving
emphasis to the sensational. A glib narrative suits its purposes. Thus, by
and large, it takes the view that justice is to be served by siding with the
Palestinians; Israel does not need or deserve a fair hearing. Media bias then
reinforces the perceptual template in millions of minds and thus drives the
need to redress the balance against Israel ever further – a need the media is
eager to satisfy; to subject the Palestinians to any critical scrutiny is
seen as oppressive in itself.

Summary

The complex relationships and historical realities of Israel and her
neighbours have become simplified and distorted in such a way as to cast
Israel as the oppressor. The Liberty/Oppression moral foundation is triggered
by this perception and leads to the increasing demonization and
de-legitimization of Israel. The application of this pattern to the situation
allows the Palestinians and the wider Arab/Muslim world to manipulate world
opinion in accordance with an inversion of the David and Goliath story. Israel
is seen to be powerful and wrong, the Palestinians as weak and virtuous.

This view can only be sustained by ignoring the wider context of Israel’s
vast, heavily populated neighbours, many of whom have massive (unshared)
wealth derived from natural resources, and the Jew-hatred that has been
endemic in Islamic culture ever since Muhammad. The Palestinians are simply
the frontline in Israel’s conflict with the Islamic ummah.

Because the Left has swallowed the bait of Israel as oppressor, the inference
that Palestinians are victims is intuitively accepted. Having succumbed to
this fallacy they then imagine that the Palestinians must be motivated by a
desire for equality and freedom – they see a desire for liberation where
there is none. This is the logical conclusion offered by the moral
architecture underpinning their perceptions. The overwhelming evidence that
this is not so is filtered out by the organising effects of the
Liberty/Oppression framework on perception, memory and thinking.

This perceptual framework is writ large in the work of the mass media.

Conclusions

Given that the Liberty/Oppression foundation exerts a strong organising force
on the thinking of the Left and makes it extremely difficult to alter their
viewpoint on a subject like Israel and the Palestinians, are there any
lessons to be drawn from the foregoing analysis?

I think we can try and deconstruct the application of the Liberty/Oppression
foundation in the following ways:

1.Investing Palestinians with the mantle
of the oppressed can create the impression that they have egalitarian
aspirations. This is demonstrably false:
a.As stated
emphatically in the Hamas Charter, they seek the complete destruction of
Israel and all Jews.
b.They seek the
implementation of Shariah law which is far from egalitarian
c.The current regime
run by Hamas is male-dominated, brutal, coercive and anti-democratic
2.Expand the time frame. Muslims have been
persecuting Jews for centuries. Muhammad hated Jews and taught that Muslims
should do likewise.
3.Religion comes first in the Islamic
world. Religion drives events and jihad drives the religion. It is amazing
how many Christians in the West attribute the actions of Hamas to poverty and
lack of freedom. It seems too far-fetched to these religious people that
Muslims are motivated by their religious beliefs. But they keep referring to
religion in all their pronouncements.
4.The battle is not between Israel and the
Palestinians but between the West and the Muslim ummah. Israel/Gaza is just
one front in the global jihad. Israel is a tiny beacon of enlightenment
surrounded by a sea of darkness.
5.Israel is still David and the Philistine
is still Goliath

Finally, with regard to Israel, there is also the consideration that Israel
is better than Gaza and the wider Muslim world for which Gaza is the spearhead.
On any measure of human progress or achievement, scientific, artistic,
political, humanitarian, it is far in advance of its Arab/Muslim neighbours.
Should the superior yield to the inferior on the say-so of the international
Left? As Pameler Geller puts it, "In any war between the civilized man
and the savage,support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."

If we are seriously concerned about reducing oppression then a far more
logical strategy is to support Israel instead of becoming the dupes of the
global jihad; for that is all Hamas is, a brutal, theocratic puppet for far
more extensive Islamic forces intent not only on the destruction of Israel
but of the entire non-Muslim world.

The Rotherham horror finally surfaces. The inaction of multicultural
ideologues is exposed. The evidence points unequivocally in the direction of
Muslims. There is a clear link with Muslim attitudes to non-Muslims.

Nietzsche warned of Europe becoming so decadent that it would lack the will
to defend itself. Well, here it is.

In my friends and acquaintances I see further denial, an unwillingness to
talk about it. Their timidity terrifies me; it makes me realize how it could
all happen again anywhere and the same spineless liberals now showing enough
dazed indignation in order to avoid appearing uncaring would be just as
ineffective in confronting it, just as they are ineffective at confronting
all aspects of the Islamic invasion.

We now have a culture so compromised that it cannot respond adequately to a
scandal like Rotherham. Once a few scapegoats have lost their jobs and their
reputations (and deservedly so) we will return to the status quo ante.

We are in cultural meltdown.

Perhaps we even deserve what’s coming to us. This same decadent society which
cannot stir to its own defence also condemns a less decadent society for
defending itself from annihilation – Israel.

Even now with all the attention that Rotherham is getting a cover-up is still
taking place, collective denial is still hard at work. None of the key
questions are being confronted:

•Why are so many Muslims involved?
•Why so much brutality?
•Why such extensive complicity in the
whole Muslim community?
•Why so much fear about racism?
•Why so much fear about ‘community
cohesion’?

There are symptoms of dhimmitude written all over this case:

•Silencing the victims in order to appease
the Muslims
•Avoiding confrontation with the Muslim
community
•Failure to inform ourselves about Islamic
culture
•Looking to ourselves as the source of the
problem

How is it that in spite of everything the Muslims still succeed in portraying
themselves as the victims of discrimination and ‘racism’? They are virtuosi
on those instruments!

The accusation of racism is a theme running through this horror story:

•the girls are initially seduced by a
Romeo who tells her that her family’s opposition to the liaison is due to
racism
•the authorities and carers are paralysed
by their fear of the same accusation of racism
•being thought racist created a fear of
doing, saying, or even thinking about objecting to what was going on

This same fear is crippling our response to the wider jihad. The same
multiculti felons have criminalised any proper discussion of Islamic doctrine
by means of their nonsensical and hysterical accusations of racism.

http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

We need to get off Saudi Barbarian OIL!!!!!Support the Canadian OIL Sands,,, and visit,, Ethicaloil.org

The gravity of the existential threat we face from Islamic Jihad is truly of epic proportions. It is essentially a battle pitting free-civilized man against a totalitarian barbarian. What is at stake is the struggle for our very soul - namely who we are and what we represent. The lives that were sacrificed for individual rights and freedoms that we've come to cherish are being chiseled away from right under our noses by the stealth jihadists. And many of us are in denial and totally clueless.

The left's appeasement and pandering to evil is nothing new. What makes their utopian delusions so infuriating and unpardonable is that it is not only they who will have to pay the consequences, and deservedly, so, they are thwarting and undermining our best efforts at resistance and are thus dragging us down in the process as well.